WEBVTT 00:00:11.720 --> 00:00:15.060 Breaking free from the chains of the past Where 00:00:15.060 --> 00:00:18.820 truth moves faster than a Holstein calf No law 00:00:18.820 --> 00:00:21.660 waiting on some printed page We're charting new 00:00:21.660 --> 00:00:25.300 ground in the digital age From genomic codes 00:00:25.300 --> 00:00:29.120 to robot facts We cut through the noise, no hold 00:00:29.280 --> 00:00:32.460 them back not your daddy's dairy news tonight 00:00:32.460 --> 00:01:01.479 we're sparking Welcome to the Bullvine Podcast, 00:01:01.960 --> 00:01:04.459 where we challenge everything you think you know 00:01:04.459 --> 00:01:07.060 about dairy farming. And if you're looking for 00:01:07.060 --> 00:01:09.500 the same old industry talking points, you're 00:01:09.500 --> 00:01:12.599 in the wrong place. Today, we're diving into 00:01:12.599 --> 00:01:15.379 a story that has the entire dairy industry buzzing. 00:01:15.980 --> 00:01:18.980 A Wisconsin farm just proved that cutting 200 00:01:18.980 --> 00:01:22.599 cows actually increased their profits by $1 .2 00:01:22.599 --> 00:01:25.780 million annually. Yeah, you heard that right. 00:01:26.140 --> 00:01:29.920 Less cows, more money. While 72 % of megadairies 00:01:29.920 --> 00:01:32.859 are hemorrhaging cash -chasing expansion, John 00:01:32.859 --> 00:01:35.840 DeFarm in Baldwin, Wisconsin, took the opposite 00:01:35.840 --> 00:01:38.739 approach. And their contrarian strategy is making 00:01:38.739 --> 00:01:41.299 industry consultants extremely uncomfortable. 00:01:41.799 --> 00:01:44.540 So buckle up, because what you're about to hear 00:01:44.540 --> 00:01:47.640 challenges every sacred cow in dairy farming. 00:01:47.900 --> 00:01:50.780 And trust me, by the end of this episode, you'll 00:01:50.780 --> 00:01:53.950 be running your own numbers. Let's dive in. Welcome 00:01:53.950 --> 00:01:56.049 back to The Deep Dive, where we cut through dairy 00:01:56.049 --> 00:01:58.269 industry noise to get you the insights that actually 00:01:58.269 --> 00:02:00.890 matter for your operation. We are focused today 00:02:00.890 --> 00:02:03.310 on a story out of Baldwin, Wisconsin, that is 00:02:03.310 --> 00:02:06.510 completely upending the biggest sacred cow in 00:02:06.510 --> 00:02:09.949 dairy, the relentless pursuit of scale. And today, 00:02:10.050 --> 00:02:12.069 yeah, we're diving deep into a feature piece 00:02:12.069 --> 00:02:14.310 that's been generating some serious buzz across 00:02:14.310 --> 00:02:16.949 the upper Midwest. This one's got layers and 00:02:16.949 --> 00:02:19.469 some genuine surprises, frankly. It's really 00:02:19.469 --> 00:02:21.330 going to make farmers rethink how they've been 00:02:21.330 --> 00:02:23.750 approaching expansion. I mean, the entire premise 00:02:23.750 --> 00:02:26.490 challenges that fundamental assumption that you 00:02:26.490 --> 00:02:28.750 always have to get bigger to justify those large, 00:02:28.830 --> 00:02:31.219 multimillion -dollar capital investments. Okay, 00:02:31.259 --> 00:02:32.960 let's unpack this immediately because the core 00:02:32.960 --> 00:02:35.180 event here is, well, it's very revolutionary. 00:02:35.280 --> 00:02:37.919 We are talking about John DeFarm, a fifth -generation 00:02:37.919 --> 00:02:41.639 operation. The farmer, Michaela McGee, she successfully 00:02:41.639 --> 00:02:44.680 pitched her lender, Compeer Financial, on a radical 00:02:44.680 --> 00:02:48.180 plan. Get this. She would reduce the herd by 00:02:48.180 --> 00:02:51.960 200 cows. That's a, what, 13 % reduction, while 00:02:51.960 --> 00:02:54.300 simultaneously securing a multimillion -dollar 00:02:54.300 --> 00:02:56.659 loan to invest in new high -tech infrastructure, 00:02:57.099 --> 00:03:01.110 specifically a big 60 -stall rotary parlor. And, 00:03:01.129 --> 00:03:02.669 you know, this is just some interesting anecdote 00:03:02.669 --> 00:03:05.069 for small farms. Not at all. This is a crucial 00:03:05.069 --> 00:03:08.650 playbook for basically everyone feeling the squeeze 00:03:08.650 --> 00:03:11.370 of input costs right now. We're sitting here 00:03:11.370 --> 00:03:13.930 mid 2025. Feed costs are all over the place. 00:03:14.069 --> 00:03:17.310 Capital is expensive and labor. Labor is, frankly, 00:03:17.590 --> 00:03:19.650 almost impossible to secure and keep hold of. 00:03:19.870 --> 00:03:21.849 What John DeFarm achieves suggests potential 00:03:21.849 --> 00:03:23.870 seven figure changes to your net profit. And 00:03:23.870 --> 00:03:25.740 that's based purely on optimization. you know, 00:03:25.740 --> 00:03:28.539 on getting better, not just getting bigger. That's 00:03:28.539 --> 00:03:30.099 why we really need to spend some serious time 00:03:30.099 --> 00:03:32.439 digging into this. Right. And here's where it 00:03:32.439 --> 00:03:34.580 gets really interesting. Frankly, it completely 00:03:34.580 --> 00:03:36.819 flips the last, what, two decades of lending 00:03:36.819 --> 00:03:39.580 philosophy on its head. Compure Financial approved 00:03:39.580 --> 00:03:42.539 a major multimillion dollar loan because John 00:03:42.539 --> 00:03:44.800 DeFarm was shrinking the herd. My immediate thought 00:03:44.800 --> 00:03:46.580 is how do you even pitch that to a banker? You 00:03:46.580 --> 00:03:49.099 know, historically, they demand growth. They 00:03:49.099 --> 00:03:51.819 want to dilute the per cow cost of new debt. 00:03:51.960 --> 00:03:54.620 This right sizing model, it signals that the 00:03:54.620 --> 00:03:56.800 lending community is maybe finally realizing 00:03:56.800 --> 00:03:59.099 that a smaller, optimized operation with high 00:03:59.099 --> 00:04:02.879 margins is actually a far safer, better bet than 00:04:02.879 --> 00:04:05.569 an an overextended mega dairy just chasing volume, 00:04:05.830 --> 00:04:08.289 you know, at the expense of efficiency. That 00:04:08.289 --> 00:04:10.949 is the pivotal shift. Absolutely. The industry 00:04:10.949 --> 00:04:12.969 has sort of conditioned us all to believe that 00:04:12.969 --> 00:04:15.229 the only way to pay for a new parlor or a new 00:04:15.229 --> 00:04:18.230 freestall barn or whatever is to add 500 cows 00:04:18.230 --> 00:04:21.269 to dilute that capital cost per head. John DeFarm 00:04:21.269 --> 00:04:23.870 essentially proved, and they used their own audited 00:04:23.870 --> 00:04:26.730 numbers to do it, that the cost of carrying the 00:04:26.730 --> 00:04:29.959 inefficiency. The elevated labor required by 00:04:29.959 --> 00:04:32.579 those marginal cows was actually higher than 00:04:32.579 --> 00:04:34.800 the annual debt service cost of the new parlor. 00:04:34.879 --> 00:04:37.360 Think about that. They paid for the debt through 00:04:37.360 --> 00:04:40.459 efficiency games, not just more volume. That 00:04:40.459 --> 00:04:42.300 is the crucial lesson we really have to unpack 00:04:42.300 --> 00:04:44.740 here. Okay, so let's take that concept, that 00:04:44.740 --> 00:04:47.439 always busy, always stressed idea, and break 00:04:47.439 --> 00:04:50.060 down what Michaela actually found when she first 00:04:50.060 --> 00:04:51.879 came back to the family farm. This was 12 years 00:04:51.879 --> 00:04:54.019 ago, right? Looting up to this big transformation. 00:04:54.699 --> 00:04:57.160 Yeah, what she walked into was, well, you'd call 00:04:57.160 --> 00:04:59.060 it a successful operation, but one that was deeply 00:04:59.060 --> 00:05:01.860 strained. It was a textbook example of that upper 00:05:01.860 --> 00:05:04.560 Midwest dairy pressure cooker scenario. They 00:05:04.560 --> 00:05:08.740 were milking 1 ,550 cows using two older herringbone 00:05:08.740 --> 00:05:10.740 parlors. And crucially, like you said, they were 00:05:10.740 --> 00:05:12.759 running those parlors 24 hours a day, seven days 00:05:12.759 --> 00:05:16.199 a week, relied on over 30 employees. The source 00:05:16.199 --> 00:05:19.120 material nails it, calls it constant firefighting 00:05:19.120 --> 00:05:22.199 and just stress. Constant firefighting. Yeah, 00:05:22.259 --> 00:05:23.959 that's the feeling every producer knows, right? 00:05:24.279 --> 00:05:26.259 You're always busy, but are you busy being efficient 00:05:26.259 --> 00:05:28.879 or are you just busy reacting to the next crisis? 00:05:28.980 --> 00:05:31.379 The fact that they were running 24 -7 tells me 00:05:31.379 --> 00:05:33.620 they had absolutely zero tolerance for error 00:05:33.620 --> 00:05:36.779 or maintenance or staff issues. Zero tolerance, 00:05:36.879 --> 00:05:39.639 exactly. A 24 -7 schedule means you have no scheduled 00:05:39.639 --> 00:05:42.199 maintenance downtime, period. So you're patching 00:05:42.199 --> 00:05:45.019 problems instead of really fixing them. And that 00:05:45.019 --> 00:05:48.339 inevitably leads to deferred maintenance on the 00:05:48.339 --> 00:05:51.379 parlor equipment. Right. Which then maybe slightly 00:05:51.379 --> 00:05:55.079 decreases throughput efficiency, which then demands 00:05:55.079 --> 00:05:57.680 more labor hours just to stay on schedule. It 00:05:57.680 --> 00:05:59.680 just becomes this grinding, exhausting cycle. 00:06:00.189 --> 00:06:02.509 It leads to burnout, you know, for the owners, 00:06:02.629 --> 00:06:05.050 for the staff, everyone. And Michaela realized 00:06:05.050 --> 00:06:07.250 this, this major calculation gap, because she 00:06:07.250 --> 00:06:09.350 had that outside perspective. She toured other 00:06:09.350 --> 00:06:11.189 dairies. She wasn't sort of buried in the day 00:06:11.189 --> 00:06:13.550 -to -day chaos like the rest of her family probably 00:06:13.550 --> 00:06:16.129 was. She saw the core inefficiency. She really 00:06:16.129 --> 00:06:18.230 nailed it with a simple quote. We had a lot of 00:06:18.230 --> 00:06:20.689 inputs for really not milking that many cows. 00:06:21.580 --> 00:06:23.899 Now, what does a lot of inputs actually translate 00:06:23.899 --> 00:06:26.040 to on the farm? It means that those last 200 00:06:26.040 --> 00:06:29.139 cows, those marginal producers, they were requiring 00:06:29.139 --> 00:06:31.399 disproportionate labor, feed, and management 00:06:31.399 --> 00:06:34.019 time relative to the actual milk they were contributing. 00:06:34.220 --> 00:06:37.459 They were essentially net labor sinks, beating 00:06:37.459 --> 00:06:40.300 up resources. Okay, I have to pause here because 00:06:40.300 --> 00:06:42.800 for the farmer listening who might be pushing 00:06:42.800 --> 00:06:46.540 a 1 ,000 cow or maybe a 500 cow operation and 00:06:46.540 --> 00:06:50.259 feels that same nagging labor pressure, What 00:06:50.259 --> 00:06:52.860 does that inefficiency look like on paper? How 00:06:52.860 --> 00:06:55.279 do you even calculate that marginal cow cost? 00:06:55.680 --> 00:06:58.120 Well, you have to look hard at your cost of production 00:06:58.120 --> 00:07:00.079 per hundredweight, your hundredweight. Let's 00:07:00.079 --> 00:07:03.100 say your overall herd average is 85 pounds, okay? 00:07:03.379 --> 00:07:05.720 But if your marginal cows are dragging that down, 00:07:05.819 --> 00:07:08.660 and maybe more importantly, if their mere presence 00:07:08.660 --> 00:07:11.420 forces you into an extra shift of labor or stops 00:07:11.420 --> 00:07:13.040 you from scheduling that preventative maintenance, 00:07:13.319 --> 00:07:15.720 you're losing money right there. If those 200 00:07:15.720 --> 00:07:18.199 cows didn't contribute enough actual milk volume 00:07:18.199 --> 00:07:20.319 to cover the cost of the extra parlor shift needed 00:07:20.319 --> 00:07:22.800 to milk them, then, well, they were operating 00:07:22.800 --> 00:07:25.319 at a loss. Simple as that. Michaela saw that 00:07:25.319 --> 00:07:27.180 the solution wasn't just milking more cows. It 00:07:27.180 --> 00:07:29.120 was removing the cows that demanded the most 00:07:29.120 --> 00:07:31.519 resources for the smallest return. So the goal 00:07:31.519 --> 00:07:33.920 became finding that point, that tipping point 00:07:33.920 --> 00:07:36.660 where complexity and just sheer chaos start eating 00:07:36.660 --> 00:07:39.240 up the marginal profit, finding their optimal 00:07:39.240 --> 00:07:41.720 efficiency threshold, basically. Yeah. And, you 00:07:41.720 --> 00:07:43.500 know, it's easy for us to sit here and talk about 00:07:43.500 --> 00:07:46.040 optimization. But imagine bringing this idea 00:07:46.040 --> 00:07:49.379 to a fifth generation dairy family. Their whole 00:07:49.379 --> 00:07:52.620 life philosophy has probably been growth equals 00:07:52.620 --> 00:07:56.230 safety. That's deeply ingrained, isn't it? Expansion 00:07:56.230 --> 00:07:58.850 is how we pay for things. So Michaela, she faced 00:07:58.850 --> 00:08:01.569 a huge cultural hurdle, just building consensus 00:08:01.569 --> 00:08:04.589 around reducing cow numbers. I'm naturally a 00:08:04.589 --> 00:08:06.649 bit skeptical here. I mean, I imagine that conversation 00:08:06.649 --> 00:08:09.810 was probably pretty contentious. Who was the 00:08:09.810 --> 00:08:11.730 biggest hurdle? Was it her father, who'd been 00:08:11.730 --> 00:08:13.810 running the operation successfully for decades? 00:08:14.649 --> 00:08:16.350 Or maybe the consultants, you know, they're usually 00:08:16.350 --> 00:08:17.829 paid to tell you how to maximize throughput. 00:08:18.170 --> 00:08:20.790 Well, interestingly, Michaela credited her grandpa's 00:08:20.790 --> 00:08:23.509 analytical mind as being really key. So the younger 00:08:23.509 --> 00:08:26.399 generation. Brought the insight, maybe. But the 00:08:26.399 --> 00:08:28.279 older generation provided that rigorous financial 00:08:28.279 --> 00:08:31.139 modeling. They didn't just guess that $3 ,350 00:08:31.139 --> 00:08:34.019 was some magic number. No, they used previous 00:08:34.019 --> 00:08:36.179 year's detailed financial reports, all the P 00:08:36.179 --> 00:08:38.879 &Ls, the labor logs, everything, to create a 00:08:38.879 --> 00:08:41.340 mock -up. They compared labor costs, feed costs, 00:08:41.620 --> 00:08:44.419 milk income, debt service, across multiple scenarios. 00:08:44.860 --> 00:08:48.360 What if we cut $100? What if we cut $200? That 00:08:48.360 --> 00:08:50.600 is the modeling process that should be mandatory 00:08:50.600 --> 00:08:53.080 before any large capital investment, really. 00:08:53.200 --> 00:08:55.899 They used hard data to figure out that the optimal 00:08:55.899 --> 00:09:01.279 number was 3 ,350 cows. That 200 -cow gap that 00:09:01.279 --> 00:09:03.399 represented the inefficiency buffer they needed 00:09:03.399 --> 00:09:05.639 to basically carve out. And that leads directly 00:09:05.639 --> 00:09:09.240 to the, frankly, brilliant terminology introduced 00:09:09.240 --> 00:09:12.480 by their CFO, Chris Van Someren. Right -sizing. 00:09:12.970 --> 00:09:15.090 We really have to stop calling this downsizing 00:09:15.090 --> 00:09:16.730 because that word implies failure, doesn't it? 00:09:16.750 --> 00:09:18.870 Or like you're retreating because of market pressure. 00:09:19.090 --> 00:09:22.240 Right -sizing, though, it's... actively optimizing 00:09:22.240 --> 00:09:24.740 for peak efficiency and maximum margin. It's 00:09:24.740 --> 00:09:27.039 framed as a strategic move forward, not a retreat. 00:09:27.279 --> 00:09:29.440 Oh, I love that psychological framing. It completely 00:09:29.440 --> 00:09:32.000 shifts the discussion from survival to optimization, 00:09:32.320 --> 00:09:34.320 doesn't it? And it aligns perfectly with the 00:09:34.320 --> 00:09:36.220 foundational philosophy Michaela's father had 00:09:36.220 --> 00:09:38.399 apparently instilled. Be the best, whatever size 00:09:38.399 --> 00:09:40.679 you are, Derry. That mantra is a direct contrast, 00:09:40.840 --> 00:09:42.980 the total opposite of that dated philosophy that 00:09:42.980 --> 00:09:44.679 says expansion is the only way to pay for big 00:09:44.679 --> 00:09:47.580 capital investments. It really proves that you 00:09:47.580 --> 00:09:50.679 can pay for a multi -million dollar parlor. through 00:09:50.679 --> 00:09:54.220 generated efficiencies and just superior margins. 00:09:54.460 --> 00:09:56.980 Rather than simply taking on more volume and 00:09:56.980 --> 00:09:59.399 diluting your average efficiency, when you look 00:09:59.399 --> 00:10:01.679 at labor costs today, I mean, especially in that 00:10:01.679 --> 00:10:04.220 $18 to $20 per hour range, maybe even higher 00:10:04.220 --> 00:10:07.519 in some places, volume simply cannot cover sloppy 00:10:07.519 --> 00:10:09.840 management anymore. It just can't. The focus 00:10:09.840 --> 00:10:12.679 has to shift to management perfection, getting 00:10:12.679 --> 00:10:14.620 the most out of what you have. Okay, let's follow 00:10:14.620 --> 00:10:16.340 the money then, because this is the section that 00:10:16.340 --> 00:10:18.659 really validates the whole concept, right? What 00:10:18.659 --> 00:10:20.679 was the immediate financial impact of putting 00:10:20.679 --> 00:10:23.080 this right -sizing model into practice, even 00:10:23.080 --> 00:10:25.179 before the new parlor was up and running? The 00:10:25.179 --> 00:10:28.179 results were, well, pretty immediate and, frankly, 00:10:28.279 --> 00:10:30.940 astounding. Within just 18 months of shrinking 00:10:30.940 --> 00:10:33.980 the herd by those 200 cows, John DeFarm was shipping 00:10:33.980 --> 00:10:36.279 nearly the same amount of milk. They maintained 00:10:36.279 --> 00:10:38.340 their 35 million pounds annually. Just think 00:10:38.340 --> 00:10:40.240 about that for a second. They kept their herd 00:10:40.240 --> 00:10:43.360 by 13%, but kept 100 % of their total milk volume. 00:10:43.600 --> 00:10:46.340 Wait, hold on. How is that physically possible? 00:10:46.460 --> 00:10:49.690 That implies... Either those 200 cows they culled 00:10:49.690 --> 00:10:51.590 were just drastically underperforming the herd 00:10:51.590 --> 00:10:54.529 average or the remaining cows improved their 00:10:54.529 --> 00:10:56.769 performance dramatically. It's probably a combination 00:10:56.769 --> 00:10:59.809 of both, yeah. But primarily it was due to health 00:10:59.809 --> 00:11:02.169 and efficiency gains. By culling that bottom 00:11:02.169 --> 00:11:05.450 10 to 13 percent of the herd, they removed... 00:11:05.679 --> 00:11:07.299 The animals that were dragging down the average, 00:11:07.360 --> 00:11:09.779 obviously. The ripple effects are critical here. 00:11:10.000 --> 00:11:12.679 Somatic cell count dropped by a massive 38%. 00:11:12.679 --> 00:11:15.960 That's huge. Overall, herd health improved. Management 00:11:15.960 --> 00:11:17.919 became more flexible because there was just less 00:11:17.919 --> 00:11:19.960 stress on the facilities, less crowding maybe. 00:11:20.220 --> 00:11:23.179 Wow, that 38 % drop in SEC alone is a massive 00:11:23.179 --> 00:11:25.399 financial win, isn't it? Far beyond just the 00:11:25.399 --> 00:11:28.039 quality premiums. We're talking reduced vet costs. 00:11:28.559 --> 00:11:30.519 probably lower antibiotic use, maybe improved 00:11:30.519 --> 00:11:32.860 longevity for the remaining herd. How did that 00:11:32.860 --> 00:11:34.720 translate into the hard dollar figures we heard 00:11:34.720 --> 00:11:36.970 about, that big number? Yeah, the bottom line 00:11:36.970 --> 00:11:39.570 validates everything. The net profit gain from 00:11:39.570 --> 00:11:42.450 shrinking was $1 .2 million annually. That's 00:11:42.450 --> 00:11:46.090 a 34 % margin improvement. And we can logically 00:11:46.090 --> 00:11:48.730 trace where this money came from. A huge chunk, 00:11:48.750 --> 00:11:50.830 which we'll detail in a minute, came from labor 00:11:50.830 --> 00:11:53.669 savings. Just massive. The rest came from feed 00:11:53.669 --> 00:11:56.370 savings, those reduced health care costs, and 00:11:56.370 --> 00:11:58.629 yeah, those higher quality premiums driven by 00:11:58.629 --> 00:12:01.750 the 38 % SEC drop. They basically monetized the 00:12:01.750 --> 00:12:04.519 removal of chaos. And this is the data that speaks 00:12:04.519 --> 00:12:06.700 volumes to the lenders, right? The source material 00:12:06.700 --> 00:12:09.059 claims that operations that shrink and optimize 00:12:09.059 --> 00:12:12.139 generate 47 % better debt coverage ratios. So 00:12:12.139 --> 00:12:14.159 the banks are no longer just prioritizing raw 00:12:14.159 --> 00:12:16.620 volume. They're prioritizing stability and margin. 00:12:16.799 --> 00:12:18.899 Makes sense. Absolutely. And that's what explains 00:12:18.899 --> 00:12:21.039 the whole banking revelation, the approval for 00:12:21.039 --> 00:12:24.159 that $3 .2 million Rotary Parlor loan. The source 00:12:24.159 --> 00:12:27.340 claims that 72 % of 1 ,500 -plus cow dairies 00:12:27.340 --> 00:12:31.230 hemorrhaged money in 2024 chasing growth. That 00:12:31.230 --> 00:12:33.250 number, it's highly provocative. We need to kind 00:12:33.250 --> 00:12:35.289 of unpack what that might mean. Yeah, I'm definitely 00:12:35.289 --> 00:12:38.629 skeptical of such a sweeping number like 72 percent. 00:12:38.669 --> 00:12:41.289 But let's just assume for a second it's directionally 00:12:41.289 --> 00:12:45.269 accurate. OK, if nearly three quarters of large 00:12:45.269 --> 00:12:48.769 dairies struggled, what specifically caused that 00:12:48.769 --> 00:12:51.129 hemorrhaging? Was it just milk rice fluctuation 00:12:51.129 --> 00:12:53.110 or was it the cost of that inefficiency, the 00:12:53.110 --> 00:12:55.549 very thing John DeFarm eliminated? It's almost 00:12:55.549 --> 00:12:58.049 certainly the latter. primarily driven by labor 00:12:58.049 --> 00:13:01.169 and feed costs. When you're over leveraged and 00:13:01.169 --> 00:13:03.409 you're trying to chase growth, you often end 00:13:03.409 --> 00:13:05.490 up managing inefficiently. You cut corners where 00:13:05.490 --> 00:13:07.870 you shouldn't. That 72 % struggle rate, maybe 00:13:07.870 --> 00:13:09.690 it's a warning sign that the old model borrowing 00:13:09.690 --> 00:13:12.309 heavily to expand into higher input costs has 00:13:12.309 --> 00:13:14.710 kind of broken down. Lenders see John DeFarm's 00:13:14.710 --> 00:13:17.559 success, right? their robust $1 .2 million profit 00:13:17.559 --> 00:13:20.220 margin, their improved debt coverage ratio, and 00:13:20.220 --> 00:13:22.080 they realize that an optimized stable operation 00:13:22.080 --> 00:13:25.240 is dramatically safer than a sprawling, maybe 00:13:25.240 --> 00:13:27.600 poorly managed one, regardless of the total cow 00:13:27.600 --> 00:13:29.320 count. They're essentially betting on management 00:13:29.320 --> 00:13:32.159 capability over sheer size now. So the loan wasn't 00:13:32.159 --> 00:13:33.960 approved despite the shrinkage. It was actually 00:13:33.960 --> 00:13:35.840 approved because of it. The shrinkage proved 00:13:35.840 --> 00:13:38.419 Michaela's competence. It showed she could identify 00:13:38.419 --> 00:13:40.940 and eliminate inefficiency, which actually made 00:13:40.940 --> 00:13:44.759 her a better credit risk. Yeah, exactly. And 00:13:44.759 --> 00:13:46.960 that financial stability gave them the confidence 00:13:46.960 --> 00:13:49.639 to make the next big move, the investment in 00:13:49.639 --> 00:13:52.399 the new infrastructure. They pushed hard for 00:13:52.399 --> 00:13:55.659 a massive 60 -stall rotary parlor, even when 00:13:55.659 --> 00:13:57.960 consultants initially recommended a smaller 40 00:13:57.960 --> 00:14:00.620 -stall model for their optimized herd size of 00:14:00.620 --> 00:14:04.019 30 to 150 cows. Why the deliberate oversizing, 00:14:04.059 --> 00:14:07.019 then? Usually, consultants push for maximum throughput 00:14:07.019 --> 00:14:09.320 for the investment dollar, don't they? Michaela 00:14:09.320 --> 00:14:11.279 went against that typical recommendation, and 00:14:11.279 --> 00:14:13.440 I assume the cost difference between a 40 stall 00:14:13.440 --> 00:14:15.440 and a 60 stall is pretty significant. Oh, it 00:14:15.440 --> 00:14:17.480 is significant, yeah. But Michaela defined that 00:14:17.480 --> 00:14:20.179 extra capacity not as headroom for future expansion, 00:14:20.399 --> 00:14:23.159 which is the old way of thinking. Instead, she 00:14:23.159 --> 00:14:25.100 saw it as headroom for operational resilience. 00:14:25.840 --> 00:14:28.879 She learned the value of having downtime during 00:14:28.879 --> 00:14:31.840 that initial right -sizing transition. She advocated 00:14:31.840 --> 00:14:34.620 for the extra capacity specifically to ensure 00:14:34.620 --> 00:14:37.009 flexibility. Okay, that's a crucial paradigm 00:14:37.009 --> 00:14:39.389 shift right there. She specifically said that 00:14:39.389 --> 00:14:41.710 having extra time for maintenance, cleaning, 00:14:41.870 --> 00:14:44.190 and scheduling is well worth the cost to me. 00:14:44.289 --> 00:14:46.789 That means the parlor is not the bottleneck anymore. 00:14:46.889 --> 00:14:49.129 It's actually a buffer. It protects the entire 00:14:49.129 --> 00:14:51.450 farm schedule from the unexpected. You know, 00:14:51.490 --> 00:14:53.889 a staff member calling out sick or a minor mechanical 00:14:53.889 --> 00:14:57.250 failure. Exactly right. The initial chaos forced 00:14:57.250 --> 00:15:01.539 them to run 247. But now... With the 60 stall 00:15:01.539 --> 00:15:05.220 rotary, they can milk those their 1 ,350 cows 00:15:05.220 --> 00:15:08.559 efficiently in much less time. That creates these 00:15:08.559 --> 00:15:11.200 large blocks of scheduled downtime every single 00:15:11.200 --> 00:15:14.179 day. And that downtime is invaluable for preventative 00:15:14.179 --> 00:15:16.679 maintenance, for de -cleaning, maybe most importantly 00:15:16.679 --> 00:15:19.299 for staff quality of life. Okay, let's break 00:15:19.299 --> 00:15:21.100 down the staggering labor math because this is 00:15:21.100 --> 00:15:23.460 where that $1 .2 million profit really starts 00:15:23.460 --> 00:15:26.159 to... Makes sense. It gets justified. Before 00:15:26.159 --> 00:15:28.720 the rotary, using those two herringbone parlors 00:15:28.720 --> 00:15:31.419 24 -7, what was the daily milking labor requirement 00:15:31.419 --> 00:15:35.299 again? Before, they were clocking 144 hours of 00:15:35.299 --> 00:15:38.779 labor daily just for milking. That requires multiple 00:15:38.779 --> 00:15:41.759 shifts, constant management oversight, and often 00:15:41.759 --> 00:15:44.000 leads to high turnover because, let's face it, 00:15:44.000 --> 00:15:46.240 the hours are brutal. With the 60 -stall rotary, 00:15:46.460 --> 00:15:48.779 they dropped that daily requirement down to just 00:15:48.779 --> 00:15:52.870 18 hours. 144 down to 18? That is... That's truly 00:15:52.870 --> 00:15:54.970 seismic. We need to spend a moment on the impact 00:15:54.970 --> 00:15:56.730 of that reduction. What does that mean for their 00:15:56.730 --> 00:15:58.870 annual savings calculation? It's exponential, 00:15:59.049 --> 00:16:01.710 really. We're talking about eliminating 126 hours 00:16:01.710 --> 00:16:05.110 of labor per day. Every single day. Annually, 00:16:05.110 --> 00:16:09.309 that equates to 45 ,990 fewer labor hours that 00:16:09.309 --> 00:16:11.330 they have to schedule, manage, train, pay benefits 00:16:11.330 --> 00:16:13.690 for. You name it. Okay, let's put a conservative 00:16:13.690 --> 00:16:15.710 dollar figure on that. If we assume an all -in 00:16:15.710 --> 00:16:18.289 cost of labor wages, benefits, payroll tax, management 00:16:18.289 --> 00:16:20.590 overhead, let's say $18 to $20 per hour, which 00:16:20.590 --> 00:16:23.809 might even be low these days, that 45 ,990 -hour 00:16:23.809 --> 00:16:26.090 reduction translates into savings of nearly $900 00:16:26.090 --> 00:16:28.690 ,000 annually, almost a million dollars saved, 00:16:28.850 --> 00:16:32.059 purely by optimizing the milking process. That's 00:16:32.059 --> 00:16:35.600 exactly why the $3 .2 million parlor isn't nearly 00:16:35.600 --> 00:16:38.379 as daunting as it sounds up front. They essentially 00:16:38.379 --> 00:16:40.580 found close to a million dollars a year in efficiencies 00:16:40.580 --> 00:16:43.000 before the milk revenue even hits the balance 00:16:43.000 --> 00:16:45.799 sheet. They paid for the new infrastructure not 00:16:45.799 --> 00:16:48.259 by adding more risk, like more cows and more 00:16:48.259 --> 00:16:51.659 debt, but by eliminating existing waste. This 00:16:51.659 --> 00:16:54.139 math, this is the new blueprint for dairy investment, 00:16:54.259 --> 00:16:56.799 I think. So that $1 .2 million profit increase 00:16:56.799 --> 00:16:58.940 we talked about, it's almost entirely driven 00:16:58.940 --> 00:17:01.480 by that massive reduction in operational chaos 00:17:01.480 --> 00:17:04.220 and labor hours. Plus those ancillary benefits 00:17:04.220 --> 00:17:07.059 from the improved health metrics like SEC. But, 00:17:07.119 --> 00:17:08.779 you know, the story doesn't end with just the 00:17:08.779 --> 00:17:11.220 math. What truly makes John DeFarm a blueprint 00:17:11.220 --> 00:17:13.599 for others, I think, is how they leverage those 00:17:13.599 --> 00:17:15.660 cost savings to actually invest in their people. 00:17:15.779 --> 00:17:18.460 They turned cost cutting into a massive competitive 00:17:18.460 --> 00:17:20.910 advantage in labor retention. Absolutely. We've 00:17:20.910 --> 00:17:22.890 definitely reached a point in agriculture, haven't 00:17:22.890 --> 00:17:25.890 we, where finding good, reliable people is often 00:17:25.890 --> 00:17:28.589 harder than maintaining butterfat averages in 00:17:28.589 --> 00:17:31.549 July heat. Employee satisfaction isn't just a 00:17:31.549 --> 00:17:33.789 nice -to -have anymore. It's a direct competitive 00:17:33.789 --> 00:17:36.809 advantage and a profit driver. John DeFarm basically 00:17:36.809 --> 00:17:39.549 created a workplace where people want to be. 00:17:39.710 --> 00:17:41.730 And the results really speak for themselves. 00:17:42.210 --> 00:17:45.500 They achieved a 65 % better retention rate. after 00:17:45.500 --> 00:17:47.640 making these changes. That's huge. We're talking 00:17:47.640 --> 00:17:50.420 about massive quality of life improvements. Instead 00:17:50.420 --> 00:17:52.799 of those brutal, frankly, mind -numbing eight 00:17:52.799 --> 00:17:55.420 -hour milking shifts that defined the 2007 world, 00:17:55.660 --> 00:17:57.900 they introduced standardized five -hour shifts. 00:17:58.160 --> 00:17:59.599 Five -hour shifts. Yeah, that makes a massive 00:17:59.599 --> 00:18:01.519 difference for family life, for burnout, just 00:18:01.519 --> 00:18:04.180 overall engagement, right? Yeah. What other tactical 00:18:04.180 --> 00:18:06.039 changes did they make to improve the culture 00:18:06.039 --> 00:18:07.700 there? Well, they implemented cross -training 00:18:07.700 --> 00:18:10.740 too. So employees might milk in the morning and 00:18:10.740 --> 00:18:12.980 then spend the afternoon feeding calves or helping 00:18:12.980 --> 00:18:15.130 with herd movement, something different. It breaks 00:18:15.130 --> 00:18:17.650 up the monotony, makes the staff feel more versatile, 00:18:17.670 --> 00:18:21.190 more engaged. Plus, the flexible scheduling that 00:18:21.190 --> 00:18:24.150 the extra rotary capacity allowed meant they 00:18:24.150 --> 00:18:26.869 could accommodate family needs sometimes, rather 00:18:26.869 --> 00:18:30.609 than demanding staff adhere rigidly to that unforgiving 00:18:30.609 --> 00:18:33.509 24 -7 cycle. And then there's that fantastic 00:18:33.509 --> 00:18:36.069 anecdote about the culture transformation, the 00:18:36.069 --> 00:18:38.839 kitchen. Michaela built a small kitchen area 00:18:38.839 --> 00:18:41.200 right above the rotary parlor where she cooks 00:18:41.200 --> 00:18:43.759 home -cooked lunches for employee meetings. She 00:18:43.759 --> 00:18:45.799 views cooking as her love language, she says, 00:18:45.819 --> 00:18:47.819 that makes meetings feel family -style and takes 00:18:47.819 --> 00:18:50.680 the edge off. That's great. You know, that gesture 00:18:50.680 --> 00:18:53.660 is invaluable. It really is. It's an investment 00:18:53.660 --> 00:18:56.500 in the culture. It proves that she values them 00:18:56.500 --> 00:19:00.279 beyond just their sheer labor output. Michaela 00:19:00.279 --> 00:19:02.259 quoted some research, apparently, that a person's 00:19:02.259 --> 00:19:04.819 boss or co -workers have just as much influence 00:19:04.819 --> 00:19:07.430 on their day as their spouse does. That's powerful. 00:19:07.589 --> 00:19:10.109 By making meetings feel more like family meals, 00:19:10.269 --> 00:19:12.589 she's directly reducing the stress load of the 00:19:12.589 --> 00:19:15.329 job. You can maybe pay $2 more an hour, sure. 00:19:15.529 --> 00:19:17.750 Or you can create a place where people genuinely 00:19:17.750 --> 00:19:20.829 feel valued and calm. The latter. That creates 00:19:20.829 --> 00:19:23.369 sustainable retention. It really seems like that 00:19:23.369 --> 00:19:25.589 massive infrastructure investment wasn't just 00:19:25.589 --> 00:19:27.710 about cows at the end of the day. It was ultimately 00:19:27.710 --> 00:19:30.150 about making the jobs of the people who manage 00:19:30.150 --> 00:19:33.250 those cows more humane, more sustainable. Precisely. 00:19:33.329 --> 00:19:35.670 And the ultimate marker of success, I think, 00:19:35.690 --> 00:19:38.589 is that sound of success anecdote. Michaela observed 00:19:38.589 --> 00:19:41.609 that the farm became so quiet in a good way after 00:19:41.609 --> 00:19:43.990 the changes that some longtime employees were 00:19:43.990 --> 00:19:45.809 actually concerned. They felt like they were 00:19:45.809 --> 00:19:48.329 forgetting something because that constant frantic 00:19:48.329 --> 00:19:51.940 sense of crisis was simply gone. Huh. That is 00:19:51.940 --> 00:19:54.299 the sound of a proactive system, isn't it? Not 00:19:54.299 --> 00:19:58.319 a reactive one. When chaos is the norm, the lack 00:19:58.319 --> 00:20:01.279 of chaos feels wrong. By eliminating the necessity 00:20:01.279 --> 00:20:04.619 of 247 firefighting, they gave their management 00:20:04.619 --> 00:20:06.700 and their staff the mental space to actually 00:20:06.700 --> 00:20:09.299 focus on optimization and care rather than just 00:20:09.299 --> 00:20:11.599 survival. That's a competitive edge you really 00:20:11.599 --> 00:20:14.039 can't put a price tag on. And John DeFarm isn't 00:20:14.039 --> 00:20:16.259 stopping at the parlor either. Their next move 00:20:16.259 --> 00:20:18.599 is continuing to take control of their inputs. 00:20:18.819 --> 00:20:20.799 They're taking on their own cropping operation 00:20:20.799 --> 00:20:23.359 now, which was previously handled by custom operators. 00:20:23.799 --> 00:20:26.160 That makes perfect strategic sense, fitting with 00:20:26.160 --> 00:20:28.160 this whole resilience philosophy, doesn't it? 00:20:28.220 --> 00:20:30.539 When your two biggest expenses are labor and 00:20:30.539 --> 00:20:33.200 feed, controlling your own crop production increases 00:20:33.200 --> 00:20:35.619 self -sufficiency. It buffers you from those 00:20:35.619 --> 00:20:38.700 volatile commodity markets. They're internalizing 00:20:38.700 --> 00:20:41.859 core costs to minimize external risk. Smart. 00:20:42.200 --> 00:20:44.420 Everything they seem to do now is viewed through 00:20:44.420 --> 00:20:46.539 that lens of optimization, not just expansion 00:20:46.539 --> 00:20:49.099 for expansion's sake. Their long -term plans, 00:20:49.440 --> 00:20:51.680 building a new freestyle for pregnant halfers, 00:20:51.799 --> 00:20:54.019 maybe relocating eventually because of urban 00:20:54.019 --> 00:20:56.539 encroachment, it all seems to fit this mold. 00:20:56.920 --> 00:20:59.480 The goal appears to be perfection within their 00:20:59.480 --> 00:21:02.900 means, not just scale. This focus, this is what 00:21:02.900 --> 00:21:04.839 we need to champion across the industry, I believe. 00:21:05.140 --> 00:21:07.000 Michaela's concluding, quote, yeah, it really 00:21:07.000 --> 00:21:09.059 should be a required reading for every dairy 00:21:09.059 --> 00:21:11.519 operator. She said, why add more to your plan? 00:21:17.360 --> 00:21:20.779 I challenge any dairy operator listening right 00:21:20.779 --> 00:21:23.640 now. Apply that same critical standard to your 00:21:23.640 --> 00:21:26.400 own current goals. Are you chasing more work 00:21:26.400 --> 00:21:28.859 just to justify debt, or are you genuinely striving 00:21:28.859 --> 00:21:30.940 for perfection in your current footprint first? 00:21:31.259 --> 00:21:33.079 The synthesis here is pretty clear, I think. 00:21:33.339 --> 00:21:36.079 John DeFarm provides a functional blueprint for 00:21:36.079 --> 00:21:38.500 the modern dairy. The industry has definitely 00:21:38.500 --> 00:21:41.079 reached an inflection point where that old expansion 00:21:41.079 --> 00:21:43.119 model is just becoming unsustainable with high 00:21:43.119 --> 00:21:47.000 labor costs and feed volatility. Optimization 00:21:47.000 --> 00:21:50.279 is the new scale. The fact that maybe 72 % of 00:21:50.279 --> 00:21:53.160 large dairies struggle chasing growth, that just 00:21:53.160 --> 00:21:55.279 confirms the danger of ignoring efficiency for 00:21:55.279 --> 00:21:57.980 volume. John to prove that a strategic shrinkage 00:21:57.980 --> 00:22:00.099 can actually net profit where desperate expansion 00:22:00.099 --> 00:22:02.420 might cause losses. And if the model works for 00:22:02.420 --> 00:22:05.599 a 1 ,550 cow operation, it absolutely applies 00:22:05.599 --> 00:22:08.799 down the line, right? To a 500 cow or a 700 cow 00:22:08.799 --> 00:22:11.039 operation struggling with that same labor or 00:22:11.039 --> 00:22:13.380 input pressure. It's about finding your efficiency 00:22:13.380 --> 00:22:16.240 sweet spot. All right. It was a lot of data and 00:22:16.240 --> 00:22:18.019 a really deep dive into the philosophy behind 00:22:18.019 --> 00:22:21.099 this. So our farmer just finished morning milking. 00:22:21.140 --> 00:22:22.640 Maybe they're driving to the feed store right 00:22:22.640 --> 00:22:25.460 now. What are the three most actionable takeaways 00:22:25.460 --> 00:22:27.720 they need to implement or at least think about 00:22:27.720 --> 00:22:30.799 from this discussion? Three things. First, the 00:22:30.799 --> 00:22:32.740 immediate action you need to take maybe this 00:22:32.740 --> 00:22:36.099 week. Run the threshold check. You need to calculate 00:22:36.099 --> 00:22:37.980 your current labor cost per hundred weight of 00:22:37.980 --> 00:22:41.579 milk. If you are spending more than $1 .47 per 00:22:41.579 --> 00:22:44.559 hundredweight on labor, and look, this is a tight 00:22:44.559 --> 00:22:46.640 benchmark, but it reflects today's reality of 00:22:46.640 --> 00:22:49.059 20 -hour labor costs, or if you're running more 00:22:49.059 --> 00:22:51.619 than 20 total hours of daily labor just for milking. 00:22:52.019 --> 00:22:54.319 The data from John Day strongly suggests you 00:22:54.319 --> 00:22:57.420 are leaving potentially $500 ,000 or more in 00:22:57.420 --> 00:23:00.079 profit on the table annually. Find your operational 00:23:00.079 --> 00:23:02.519 efficiency score to maybe annual profit divided 00:23:02.519 --> 00:23:05.059 by total cows, and compare your marginal cows 00:23:05.059 --> 00:23:07.099 to your average performance. Know your numbers. 00:23:07.500 --> 00:23:10.619 Yeah, to put that $1 .57 cent in context, historically, 00:23:10.799 --> 00:23:13.500 maybe we tolerated labor costs closer to $1 .20 00:23:13.500 --> 00:23:15.859 or even $1 .30 rate. But the reality of rising 00:23:15.859 --> 00:23:18.339 wages, diminishing staff availability, it means 00:23:18.339 --> 00:23:20.660 that threshold has tightened significantly. If 00:23:20.660 --> 00:23:22.980 you're above $1 .50, you likely have a critical 00:23:22.980 --> 00:23:24.920 efficiency problem that just adding more volume 00:23:24.920 --> 00:23:27.519 probably won't solve. Exactly. Okay, second thing. 00:23:27.779 --> 00:23:29.720 Medium -term strategies say over the next three 00:23:29.720 --> 00:23:32.140 to six months, you need to engage in some rigorous 00:23:32.140 --> 00:23:34.990 financial modeling. Do exactly what John DeFarm 00:23:34.990 --> 00:23:37.309 did. Take your previous detailed financial reports, 00:23:37.450 --> 00:23:39.509 your actual numbers, not wishful thinking, and 00:23:39.509 --> 00:23:41.910 create a mock -up. Show the impact of a targeted 00:23:41.910 --> 00:23:45.410 10 -15 % herd reduction. Focus specifically on 00:23:45.410 --> 00:23:48.029 culling the bottom 10 % based on lactation performance, 00:23:48.430 --> 00:23:50.970 health history, whatever metrics you track. Then, 00:23:51.089 --> 00:23:53.150 track the projected changes. What happens to 00:23:53.150 --> 00:23:55.710 labor costs? Feed costs? How does that impact 00:23:55.710 --> 00:23:57.809 your projected net milk income? And at the same 00:23:57.809 --> 00:23:59.950 time, look for areas for greater self -sufficiency. 00:24:00.130 --> 00:24:03.309 Can you bring dry cow management in -house? Cropping 00:24:03.309 --> 00:24:06.089 operations? Reduce that external cost exposure. 00:24:06.349 --> 00:24:08.289 So basically, you are running a real -life simulation 00:24:08.289 --> 00:24:10.789 using your own historical data to see if the 00:24:10.789 --> 00:24:12.970 reduction in expenses actually outweighs any 00:24:12.970 --> 00:24:15.150 potential reduction in volume. That's the only 00:24:15.150 --> 00:24:16.529 way you can realistically pitch this to your 00:24:16.529 --> 00:24:18.650 own family or your partners or definitely your 00:24:18.650 --> 00:24:22.210 lender. You need the numbers. Exactly. And finally, 00:24:22.309 --> 00:24:24.589 the long -term positioning. Thinking one to two 00:24:24.589 --> 00:24:28.180 years out. Invest in resilience in people. Adopt 00:24:28.180 --> 00:24:30.880 this right -sizing philosophy. When you are planning 00:24:30.880 --> 00:24:33.319 major capital improvements like a new parlor 00:24:33.319 --> 00:24:36.480 or barn, you absolutely must prioritize flexibility 00:24:36.480 --> 00:24:39.630 and resilience. That means building in scheduled 00:24:39.630 --> 00:24:42.670 downtime. Don't just maximize immediate cow throughput. 00:24:42.970 --> 00:24:45.930 Remember that nearly $900 ,000 in labor savings 00:24:45.930 --> 00:24:48.670 at John D. was also effectively an investment 00:24:48.670 --> 00:24:51.329 in achieving 65 % better employee retention. 00:24:51.690 --> 00:24:53.809 Your infrastructure has to support your people, 00:24:53.890 --> 00:24:56.490 not just your cows. Because satisfied, stable 00:24:56.490 --> 00:24:59.650 employees are arguably your single largest competitive 00:24:59.650 --> 00:25:02.440 advantage today. That capacity for downtime and 00:25:02.440 --> 00:25:04.519 maintenance, it's like an insurance policy against 00:25:04.519 --> 00:25:07.000 operational chaos, isn't it? It really is. Absolutely. 00:25:07.339 --> 00:25:09.180 This has been another deep dive from the Deep 00:25:09.180 --> 00:25:11.680 Dive. If this kind of analysis helps your operation, 00:25:11.920 --> 00:25:13.819 head to our website for more articles that tell 00:25:13.819 --> 00:25:16.119 you what's really happening in dairy. And seriously, 00:25:16.359 --> 00:25:19.079 subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We're 00:25:19.079 --> 00:25:21.460 releasing Deep Dives twice weekly now. And trust 00:25:21.460 --> 00:25:22.960 me, you don't want to miss what we've got coming 00:25:22.960 --> 00:25:24.740 next week. We're talking about the true impact 00:25:24.740 --> 00:25:28.559 of synthetic milk alternatives on Class IV -V 00:25:28.559 --> 00:25:31.539 pricing models. Class IVb milk, generally used 00:25:31.539 --> 00:25:33.880 for things like butter and powdered milk. We 00:25:33.880 --> 00:25:35.579 are going to break down how these new alternatives 00:25:35.579 --> 00:25:38.799 are specifically targeting and disrupting those 00:25:38.799 --> 00:25:41.559 commodity markets and what that really means 00:25:41.559 --> 00:25:42.779 for your bottom line. It's going to be interesting. 00:25:43.059 --> 00:25:45.759 All right. That's a wrap on today's episode of 00:25:45.759 --> 00:25:49.180 the Bullvine Podcast. Look, I know some of you 00:25:49.180 --> 00:25:51.220 are sitting there thinking this right -sizing 00:25:51.220 --> 00:25:54.099 approach sounds too good to be true. But here's 00:25:54.099 --> 00:25:57.960 the thing. John DeFarm's numbers don't lie. Same 00:25:57.960 --> 00:26:01.539 milk production. $900 ,000 less in labor costs, 00:26:01.720 --> 00:26:04.200 and employees who actually want to show up to 00:26:04.200 --> 00:26:07.079 work. If you're ready to challenge the expansion 00:26:07.079 --> 00:26:10.380 at all costs mentality, head over to thebullvine 00:26:10.380 --> 00:26:13.200 .com for the complete breakdown, including the 00:26:13.200 --> 00:26:15.960 exact financial models and implementation timeline. 00:26:16.500 --> 00:26:19.240 We've got the data, the metrics, and the step 00:26:19.240 --> 00:26:22.059 -by -step roadmap. And hey, if you think I'm 00:26:22.059 --> 00:26:24.799 wrong about this, I want to hear from you. Drop 00:26:24.799 --> 00:26:27.059 us a comment, send us your numbers, prove me 00:26:27.059 --> 00:26:29.630 wrong. That's how this industry gets better, 00:26:29.730 --> 00:26:33.470 through real debate, not polite agreement. Remember, 00:26:33.849 --> 00:26:35.890 The Bullvine isn't here to make you comfortable. 00:26:35.990 --> 00:26:39.369 We're here to make you profitable. Until next 00:26:39.369 --> 00:26:42.529 time, keep questioning conventional wisdom, keep 00:26:42.529 --> 00:26:45.269 pushing boundaries, and keep making dairy farming 00:26:45.269 --> 00:26:48.210 better. Thanks for listening to The Bullvine 00:26:48.210 --> 00:26:58.210 Podcast. We'll see you next time. Thank you.